Sammy Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. and learned Member accept that the situation is even worse than that? If goods that are subsidised or get state aid in GB have a tenuous connection with markets in Northern Ireland, the EU can again limit the amount of state aid given, disadvantaging some producers even here in GB.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a further chilling effect? Namely, companies that might decide to invest in GB or in Northern Ireland may well feel that since they would be able to achieve less support in Northern Ireland than in GB, they will simply choose to invest outside Northern Ireland in GB, and jobs and investment opportunities will therefore be lost as a result of the picture he has painted.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Defence Industrial Strategy 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I met two apprentices who were engaged in firms delivering defence contracts in Northern Ireland and were enthusiastic about the skills and their prospects, but Northern Ireland benefits minimally from defence contracts across the United Kingdom. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that more contracts are awarded to Northern Ireland, and will he ignore the comments of the First Minister, who does not want that to happen?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week the Government pushed through the imposition of the emissions trading scheme on domestic shipping. That will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland, because so many goods are brought into Northern Ireland from GB, or sent there, on ferries. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact this will have on consumer prices and manufacturing costs in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that Northern Ireland will face heavy costs because of this net zero policy?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  Of course we need a commissioner who has the power and ability to expose corruption and deal with it, but today’s statement was not required. We already knew that the Prime Minister made a bad judgment. What the public want to know is how he will be held to account for the things that he knew but ignored. Will the Minister assure the House that when he looks at extra powers for commissioners, he will not go as far as was gone in Northern Ireland, where the discredited former standards commissioner used her powers to silence Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who were questioning Ministers too vigorously, or who were not showing enough empathy when they made public statements about security situations in their constituency? I ask this particularly because when heckling fails, some Members of this House now threaten other Members by reporting them to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to try to silence them that way.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not give way. This demand will be used to justify the intimidatory marches that we see week after week throughout the United Kingdom. It will be used to justify the barricading of Jewish businesses, the banning of Jewish students and academics from universities, and even the banning of Israeli sports fans from sporting events in the United Kingdom. This is part of the campaign to justify the sectarianism, which is now creeping into the debate in the United Kingdom—

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Hamas would disagree with the hon. Member, because Hamas boasted that the killing of civilians would help to increase the resistance and put some fire into it. Before accusations are made against Israel, let us look at the record of Hamas on putting civilians in harm’s way, and basing their rockets and firing points in hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and therefore inviting the retaliation, based on the fact that Israeli armed forces had to take action. The rules of engagement were such that even the former supreme chief of NATO was able to observe that when it came to the way that Israel engaged the enemy in Gaza, its standards were higher than what we would have expected even of the British Army in such circumstances. My concern is this: the motion, and this demand—

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The question was asked at the start of this debate, “Whose side are we on?” Let me make something very clear: I am on the side of the people who suffered one of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023, when their citizens were raped, burnt, taken into captivity and killed in cold blood, and their killers boasted about it and stuck it on the internet. I am on the side of those people who since then have suffered the most sectarian abuse because they are Jews and happen to live in this country. Members have asked how we can ignore the ruling of the International Court of Justice. First, it has not said there was any intent. Secondly, the judge who decided in that case was twice a candidate for Prime Minister of Lebanon, with the support of a terrorist group, so I do not think we can see the International Court of Justice as an independent body here. The fact is that Israel took every attempt to reduce the civilian casualties in Gaza. One only has to look at the ratio of civilian casualties in Gaza to those in Iraq or Afghanistan and the actions that Israel has taken, even putting its own soldiers at risk by leafleting, telephoning and using UN co-ordination to say when it will strike and withdrawing some of its strikes when it did. Who put the civilians in harm’s way? Hamas made it quite clear that civilians being killed would put blood into the veins of resistance. That is the kind of enemy Israel is up against. Even if there were an investigation, I do not think it would find that Israel was reckless in the way it has responded to a terrorist attack on its own civilians.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The impact of the measure will have a disproportionate cost, especially in Northern Ireland, which relies on sea transport for the import of goods from GB, and for the export of goods from Northern Ireland to GB. Although the order is regarded as a domestic measure, it nevertheless affects an important part of our economic infrastructure, all to deal with an issue that results in about 1% of the UK’s total emissions. The order does not deal with a huge amount of carbon emissions, but it will have a disproportionate cost for Northern Ireland. That is on top of the costs that Northern Ireland already experiences as a result of the protocol and the Windsor framework, which has already added significantly to the cost of bringing goods in from GB and taking goods from Northern Ireland to GB. The order’s impact on emissions will not be all that great anyway. It is not as if the measure will be an incentive for operators to change their behaviour, as they cannot: there are no alternatives other than sea transport. Therefore, whatever additional costs are imposed will have to be borne by consumers. I know the Minister talked about the reduction in emissions and working towards net zero and everything else. Given the nature of sea transport and its importance for transport between Northern Ireland and GB, as well as the lack of alternatives, this policy cannot lead to transport providers changing how they behave. They cannot go for alternative fuels; near-net zero fuels would simply price them out of the market because they are four to five times dearer than the fuels they use. They cannot opt for the electrification of ships; first of all, it is quite expensive, and secondly, the port infrastructure facilities are not even available. It is also significant that there is no support package either. There was no talk anywhere in the Minister’s comments of the revenues raised being used to help the transition to different ways of transporting goods. The administrative costs that will be imposed through this order have already been mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. The assessment gives us a range of between £103 million and £287 million. I think that shows that it is just a guess, and it indicates that the Government do not have a clue what the administrative costs will be. That is only the direct administrative costs for the operators, by the way. On top of that are the regulatory costs, which, again, the impact assessment says will be passed on to the operators anyhow. That is before any mitigation measures; those are just the administrative costs. What will the total cost of this be? Those costs are bound to have an impact in many ways. The one thing Members can be sure of is that they will be passed on in higher freight rates, including in the freight rates between Northern Ireland and GB. Some may argue, “Well, that simply means that Northern Ireland producers will look elsewhere. They may look to the Irish Republic, for example, for supplies instead of bringing them from GB, if the routes are more costly”, but the fact remains that we are dependent on GB, our main supply route is from GB to Northern Ireland and most of our goods are going from Northern Ireland to GB, so there is not even an alternative to switching, even if that were desirable, and it is not desirable because firms choose the GB market because it is profitable for them and they choose GB suppliers because they are the best suppliers that they can use for their businesses. The Government will probably say, “Well, yes, but we have made a 50% allowance for Northern Ireland”. I suppose the Minister will argue that that is a recognition that there is a special case for Northern Ireland. My argument is this: if the 50% allowance has been put in place, it is only because the Government recognise the disproportionate impact that the measure will have on Northern Ireland. According to the operators, that 50% allowance will go nowhere near to wiping out the costs. It has not even been mentioned that this measure will have to be in place by July. There is not even any clear guidance available yet to the operators about what they will be required to do, and the EU is reviewing its emissions trading scheme simply because it recognises that there are technical details that need to be ironed out, yet the Government will load their scheme on to operators in three months’ time. I have already mentioned the fact that this policy will first of all not reduce emissions because there are no alternatives, and secondly, the revenue that we raise from it will not be used to help operators transition from the methods that they use at present. There is nothing in this order about making money available for retrofitting, fuel experimentation and development, or putting power facilities on port sites to enable ships to use an alternative means of propulsion. This is simply a tax. It will not even achieve what the Government want—namely, to reduce emissions. It will have an impact on an economy—on a part of the United Kingdom —already burdened by actions that the previous Government took with the Windsor framework, which has been continued by this Government. This will be yet another cost on top of that. There is a case for saying that this measure should not be applied to domestic transport; we have heard about the impact on ferries to the islands. There is certainly a case for looking at the speed with which it is being implemented. I urge the Committee to consider those points. I know that I will not have a vote on this measure. I suspect that even if I did have a vote and we tried to pack the place, it would not make any difference. I just ask that these serious issues are considered. This is not just a whinge and saying, “We don’t like this applying to Northern Ireland.” The measure will have serious impacts on our main trade routes with GB. The freight rates for those routes will not achieve the result that the Minister outlined. I ask that the issue be reconsidered with two solutions in mind. First, I am asking for a delay to allow further review and assessment of the impact. Secondly, given the likely impact on Northern Ireland and other isolated parts of the United Kingdom, I ask that the domestic application of the measure be dropped.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement. It is a pity that it does not include hotels and restaurants, because the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland is under massive pressure due to taxes and the regulations that have been imposed. The Minister has confirmed that this will be new money and therefore there will be a Barnett consequential. Can he indicate how much that will be? More importantly, can he ensure that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister spends the money for the purpose that was intended, rather than spending it for other purposes, which he has done in the past?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Unusually, the Minister has resorted to bluster today, accusing those of us who are opposed to the treaty of being “irresponsible” and “toying with” the security of the country. Does he not accept that it is the Government who are toying with the security of this country by ignoring the views of the Americans who use the Diego Garcia base, the fears of the Chagossians and the drain on public finances? Are the Government not using their majority and their Members as pawns to push through a deal that they know is wrong, unfair and dangerous for the country?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The figures given by the Secretary of State bear out the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Of the 200 additional civil cases, 120 are directed towards the Ministry of Defence. Does that not bear out his point that this will be a one-sided outcome and a one-sided operation?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  No, it has nothing to do with justice. Although the Secretary of State and others today have argued that this is all about helping victims, innocent victims will not get any justice through this system, because it comes down to who holds the records. When cases go to the courts, there will be no documentation to bring from IRA campaigns and activities. Members should read the book written by Austin Stack, whose father was a prison officer in Portlaoise and who sought for 20 years to get justice. One line of the book that stands out is when Gerry Adams eventually took him to meet some of the IRA commanders, and in the car on the way there he said, “Don’t expect too much, because we don’t keep records.” That is the problem. The state kept records, but the IRA and the terrorists did not keep records, so the cases are going to be one-sided. The Secretary of State told us today that, as a result of this measure, 200 new civil cases will be opened, 120 of them against the MOD. The statistics have shown quite clearly that most of the murders were carried out by paramilitaries, yet most of the civil cases will be taken against the MOD. That is because there is a deliberate campaign to rewrite history. The vast majority of people who take forward these cases want to ensure that they get a case into court, drag out all the information that is available—held by the state—and get a result that paints the picture that the IRA and the terrorists were the wronged parties. If anything, this does not give comfort to victims but only rubs salt in their wounds. That is why this remedial order is wrong. It will present the chance to rewrite history, and it will lead to huge costs in compensation claims. As has been said, it will also be a warning to people who we call to serve this country in future that this tactic might be used against them. That is why this is bad. The Secretary of State knows that he did not need to bring this measure forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in his excellent speech, laid out the reasons why that is the case, so I will not go through them. Why is the Secretary of State going through with this? He knows the results, so why does he pursue it? I can only assume that he puts the adherence to the ECHR above the interests of veterans and victims, and that is a disgrace.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  It is not about the rule of law. This is about the terrorist organisations seeking to rewrite the history of the troubles on an industrial scale, using the fact that the Army and the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland have all the records, and they have none. This is therefore a one-sided operation.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Veterans will have heard the honeyed words of the Secretary of State at the start of his speech today, when he talked about the debt of gratitude we owe to those who served in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances. Yet this order is all about removing protections that would have been available to those very veterans against what is a continued terrorist campaign conducted not through guns, not through bombs and not through killings, but through the courts. I have heard many people on the Government Benches say, “Oh, we’ve got to uphold the rule of law.” That is totally naive. This is not about the rule of law in Northern Ireland; this is about the abuse of the law by those who cannot accept that they lost in their terrorist campaign, who want to rewrite the history of that terrorist campaign, and who want to put the blame on the forces of law and order who stood between the citizens and the murderers and the criminals.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Despite the fact that the plan will not apply to Northern Ireland, I welcome the aspect that applies to rented accommodation. Could the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that, even with this plan, there will still be an up-front cost, so low-income families will have to borrow, which will be an impediment? Does he also recognise that despite what he has done on electricity prices, running costs will still be higher, because that is offset by the cost of his net zero policies, which cause electricity to be dearer than gas?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Most people listening to this debate, even if they do not know a great deal about the Chagos islands and the base, will understand that we have handed over the islands when there was no necessity to do so, only to use taxpayers’ money to lease them back. That is one of the scandals of the treaty. The Minister talked about building a relationship of trust with the Chagos islanders. What way is this to build trust? The Government have refused to give them a say on whether this treaty reflects their interests and deals with their concerns and the despicable way in which they have been treated in the past. The cost is wrong. The way in which we are treating the people who are affected by the treaty is wrong. The Government’s position on the long-term security of the base is wrong. This is a bad deal for the United Kingdom, and we should be ashamed that the Government’s majority is being used to push the deal through when it is so clear that it is full of flaws and problems for our future.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a sad day for the United Kingdom. The Government have not been prepared to stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, they seem to be willing to surrender when any challenge is made to its interests. Let us look at some of the arguments that the Minister has made against the amendments. First, the Minister said that nothing has changed since the Bill was originally brought to the House, but of course we have seen that the American attitude has changed. The United Nations says that we are not giving the protections to the people we should be giving them to—in fact, we are more interested in the rights of the Danes who live in Greenland than the Chagossian population. The UN has actually said that we should stay this. So there have been changes, and the changes have been substantial. The second argument we heard is that the base was under threat and we therefore had to make changes. I noticed what the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the marine protected area and the environmental requirements on the Mauritian Government, but there is no legal requirement in this treaty for the Mauritian Government to protect the marine protected area. Indeed, they have made it quite clear that fishing will be allowed in the marine protected area. What is the danger there? It is of course that Chinese ships can come into the area, and we know that in the South China sea, the Chinese have used commercial ships as their eyes and ears, so the base is under threat as a result of this change.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just a question of ensuring that the 24-nautical-mile exclusion zone prevents spying and everything else; the area would still be left environmentally damaged, and there would still be a threat to the military base. Thirdly, the Government have refused even to consider the Lords amendment about cost. At a time when we are looking for every penny, so that we can supply the citizens of this country with the services that they require, the Government are turning their nose up at an amendment that would ensure that if the base cannot be used, we will no longer pay for it. The Minister has talked about the cost. He has told us all the mechanisms by which the cost has been calculated, but he has not actually told us what the cost is. Is it £3 billion? Is it £10 billion? Is it £37 billion? The difference between those figures is significant to our constituents.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  Whether it is retail, hospitality or pubs, businesses right across the United Kingdom, especially small businesses, are failing. That is due in no small part to action by the Government—increased taxes, increased energy prices and increased regulation. Rates play a big part in that, too. Can the Minister assure us that if there is to be further additional money for support, it will be ringfenced and not given to the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, where the Sinn Féin Minister has taken the money but spent it on something else?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  People in Northern Ireland on a day-to-day basis know well how casually the democratic process can be set aside, not just by this Government but by the previous Government, who gave the EU permission to impose its laws on the people of Northern Ireland without any say at all. Now the people of England are beginning to experience that—3.7 million people, who would want to vote against the £280 million of additional taxes imposed on them by Labour councils, will now be denied the ability to have their say. Are the Government running scared of Reform, or do they simply not want to be held to account? Do they not realise that behaving like this turns the United Kingdom into some kind of third-world dictatorship?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that—rather belatedly, two weeks later—the Government have made a statement to the House about the situation in Iran, giving particular attention and praise to the women who have, at great personal sacrifice, led the opposition to the regime, which directs its ire at women in particular. This should stand as a warning to the people who wish to promote sharia law and sharia courts in this country. The Foreign Secretary has highlighted the impact of the Iranian regime on our citizens and our interests. What discussions has she had with the Iranian opposition, to ensure that there is a transition from this repugnant regime to a friendly, democratic and peaceful regime there?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, and we have seen how divisive some of the decisions made in the Assembly have been, whether on cultural issues or economic issues, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) pointed out. Alarm bells should ring if we are considering removing the fabric that is there to ensure proper discussion before final decisions are made. I notice that there is not a great deal of interest in this debate from parties other than those from Northern Ireland—and selfish interest, as well. I do not care what has been said; this is selfish interest. In fact, we are now told that the Irish and British Governments should come together and try to force through the changes that the new majority cabal wish to impose on the Assembly. I think that is wrong, we will be opposing it, and there is certainly no logical, political or community reason why the changes that are being demanded should be made.